DOCSLIB.ORG

CPB Discussion Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CPB Discussion Paper CPB Discussion Paper No 138 February 2010 Systems of Innovation Luc Soete, Bart Verspagen and Bas ter Weel The responsibility for the contents of this CPB Discussion Paper remains with the author(s) CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis Van Stolkweg 14 P.O. Box 80510 2508 GM The Hague, the Netherlands Telephone +31 70 338 33 80 Telefax +31 70 338 33 50 Internet www.cpb.nl ISBN 978-90-5833-434-3 2 Abstract in English We review the literature on national innovation systems. We first focus on the emergence of the concept of innovation systems, reviewing its historical origins and three main flavours (associated to three “founding fathers” of the concept). After this, we discuss how the notion of innovation systems filled a need for providing a broader basis for innovation policy. We conclude with some perspectives on the future of the innovation systems literature. Key words: National innovation systems, innovation policy JEL code: O38, O31 Abstract in Dutch Wij brengen de literatuur over nationale systemen van innovatie in kaart. Hierbij richten we ons eerst op het ontstaan van het concept. Dit doen we door de historische wortels te bekijken en de drie verschillende stromingen naast elkaar te zetten. Daarna beschouwen we hoe deze literatuur in de behoefte van een breder begrip van innovatiebeleid heeft voorzien. We eindigen met een perspectief op de toekomst van deze stroming in de economische literatuur. Steekwoorden: Innovatiesystemen, innovatiebeleid 3 4 Contents Summary 7 1 Introduction 9 2 A galaxical guide to the economics of NSI 13 2.1 Definitions 13 2.2 Main players 14 2.3 Insights and Outcomes 16 3 National Systems of Innovation and Policy 21 3.1 Policies based on NSI 21 3.2 NSI as a framework for new industrial policies 22 3.3 Moving beyond sectors: more systemic policy views 23 4 Current policy challenges to the NSI concept 27 4.1 The service economy: Innovation without (industrial) research 27 4.2 From national to international systems of innovation 28 5 Conclusions 31 References 33 5 Summary This research contains an overview of the literature on systems of innovation and has been solicited for the Handbook of the Economics of Innovation , edited by Bronwyn H. Hall and Nathan Rosenberg. The handbook will appear in 2010. Concept and outcomes Systems of innovation spell out the importance of ‘systemic’ interactions between the various components of inventions, research, technical change, learning and innovation. The national systems of innovation (NSI) bring to the forefront the central role of the state as a coordinating agent. Its particular attractiveness to policy makers lays in the explicit recognition of the need for complementary policies, drawing attention to weaknesses in the system, while highlighting the national setting of most of those institutions. The concept of NSI as it was developed in the 1980s by Chris Freeman, Bengt-Ake Lundvall and Richard Nelson owes much to historical insights. It provided a view on innovation next to the more traditional market failure approaches to research and innovation policy. The central idea in modern innovation systems theory is the notion that what appears as innovation at the aggregate level is in fact the result of an interactive process that involves many actors at the micro level, and that next to market forces many of these interactions are governed by non-market institutions. Because the efficiency of this process observed at the macro level depends on the behaviour of individual actors, and the institutions that govern their interaction, coordination problems arise. It is mainly through comparative historical analysis that scholars began to adopt such a systemic view of innovation. Not surprisingly, economists in the institutional tradition of innovation studies and scholars of evolutionary theories became the strongest proponents of the notion of systems of innovation. In these views the system of innovation is a continuous process where institutions (habits and practices), learning and networks play a central role in generating innovation and technological change. This literature has provided a number of useful insights. First, stressing the role of non- R&D-based innovation has been useful in broadening the discussion on innovation beyond the already well established economics of R&D. Second, institutions are central to the NSI concept as they provide structure to as well as insights in the way in which actors (including organisations) behave within the system. Third, not only knowledge but also everyday learning is important for the innovation process. In this view, the sources of knowledge include all those entities introducing knowledge into social and economic change. Fourth, there is a need for a constant interaction and cooperation between the innovating firm and its external environment, which in the optimal case leads to a virtuous circle of a better exploitation of available knowledge. Finally, not only formal institutions matter for innovation. Social capital also stimulates innovation and has been identified as an important determinant in explaining differences in income. 7 Policy The notion of NSI has caught on in many policy circles. At the national level, the notion of innovation systems has been used amongst others in Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands, as well as in supra-national organisations such as the OECD, the European Commission, UNCTAD, and even the World Bank and IMF. The main implication of the NSI concept from the point of view of policy is that it provides a much broader foundation for policy as compared to the traditional market failure-based policy perspective. Markets do not play the overarching role of generating an optimal state in the NSI approach. Instead, non-market-based institutions are an important ingredient in the ‘macro’ innovation outcome. This broad, almost philosophical outlook on policy has two major consequences for the foundations of actual policy measures. The first is that there is a broader justification of the use of policy instruments as compared to market failure-based policies. The second implication is that the government or policymaking body is part of the system itself with its own aims and goals being endogenous. The concept of NSI is under erosion from two sides. First, there is the emergence of various new sorts of knowledge service activities, allowing for innovation without the need for particular leaps in science and technology. Second and closely related, the ‘national’ perspective on an innovation system approach appears under pressure given the globalisation trends and the inherent limits of national policy making in an area which is increasingly borderless. Conclusion We sum up the discussion in five main points. First, the notion of innovation systems points to a crucial role of history in contemporary economic performance, and the roots it has in innovation performance. Second, there remain important differences in the ways that different scholars are using the notion of an innovation system. Third, the innovation systems literature has led to five main insights: the importance of a broader set of innovation inputs than just R&D, the importance of institutions and organisations, the role of interactive learning, leading to a dynamic perspective rather than a static allocative one, the role of interaction between agents, and, finally, the role of social capital. Fourth, the national innovation systems literature is one that is primarily aimed at analysing policy, and, correspondingly, it has sought, in many cases successfully, policy influence. As we have argued, the notion of innovations systems opens up possibilities for re-interpreting and re-engaging existing policy alternatives, such as industrial policy and trade policy. What it offers policy makers is a framework, not so much characterised by a different set of policy instruments, but rather by a wider set of justifications for policy, and a wider set of policy goals. Finally, the innovation systems approach has managed to obtain a strong position in the literature and in policy circles, but its future depends on how well its proponents will be able to develop the approach further. 8 1 Introduction * The particular focus on invention and technical change as central factors behind economic growth and development is of relatively recent origin (Mokyr, 2010). While early classical economists were well aware of the critical role of technology in economic progress, they would typically consider such technical progress as fully embodied within the notion of capital, a vision which remained dominant up to the late 1950s. At that point it was recognised that “something” (a residual, Solow, 1957), a measure of our ignorance (Abramowitz, 1956) appeared behind most of the economic growth in the twentieth century and the acceleration in the post-war period. Thus, while Adam Smith did observe in his Wealth of Nations that improvements in machinery came both from the manufacturers of machines and from “philosophers or men of specialisation, whose trade is not to do anything but to observe everything ...”, he considered such advances of technology as largely due to the inventiveness of people working directly in the production process or immediately associated with it: “... a great part of the machines made use of in those manufactures in which labour is most subdivided, were originally the inventions of common workmen” (Smith, 1776, p. 8). This view on technological advances led to a strong critique from Friedrich List who, back in 1841, wrote: “Adam Smith has merely taken the word capital in that sense in which it is necessarily taken by rentiers or merchants in their bookkeeping and their balance sheets ... He has forgotten that he himself includes (in his definition of capital) the intellectual and bodily abilities of the producers under this term. He wrongly maintains that the revenues of the nation are dependent only on the sum of its material capital” (p.183). List’s contribution is particularly important in this context because he was one of the first economists to recognise the crucial role of the ‘systemic’ interactions between science, technology and skills in the growth of nations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Destructive Creation
    Innovation, Europe and Policy Reflections on innovation studies Luc Soete Maastricht University The Netherlands UNU-MERIT 25th anniversary, Vaeshartelt, 28th November, 2014 First a parenthesis on long waves and my days at SPRU • Long waves: I had my own personal interpretation of long wave performance that got most interest and comments from Marie Jahoda, Chris Freeman and Keith Pavitt: – Based on an article of Marie Jahoda in Futures on generation conflicts; – Proposals for alternative thoughts on marriage across generations – a first draft was written, never published though... • Wouldn’t dare to go in more technical details here but the main idea was that men and women were intertemporarily “mismatched”: men displayed a long cyle of (sexual) boom and dust; women by contrast witnessed a continuous gradual growth path leveling of at mid-life but staying more or less constant till old age. • Marie Jahoda and I therefore proposed to reform marriage from two to three, now with intergenerational partners: a younger man, a middle-aged woman and an older man, over time opposite sex partners would be added, so in the next phase a younger women, a middle aged man and an older woman. • Our proposal would reduce divorce rates, solve intergenerational conflicts, reduce child raising and household costs and increase social cohesion in society. • Unfortunately the paper on the Jahoda-Soete cycle was never published... The Jahoda-Soete cycle • In line with the long wave hype of the time at SPRU, we considered a four phase cycle: – In the first phase
    [Show full text]
  • 00 Pre Techno & Future Euro
    Contributors Bruno Amable is a professor at the University of Lille 2 and a researcher at CEPREMAP, Paris, France. Robert Boyer is a CNRS director of research at CEPREMAP and at EHESS, Paris, France. Eve Caroli is a researcher at INRA/LEA and CEPREMAP, Paris, France. Ü.D. Efendioglu is a researcher at INTECH, UN University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Christopher Freeman is an emeritus professor at SPRU, University of Sus- sex, Brighton, UK. Donatella Gatti is a researcher at WZB, Berlin, Germany. Michael Landesmann is a professor at the University of Linz and scientific director at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, Vienna, Austria. Ivo De Loo is an assistant professor at the Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands. Huub Meijers is a senior researcher at MERIT and in the Department of Economics and Business Administration of Maastricht University, The Neth- erlands. Lars Mjøset is a professor in the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, and a researcher at the ARENA project, University of Oslo, Norway. Joan Muysken is a professor in the Department of Economics and Business Administration of Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Pascal Petit is a CNRS director of research at CEPREMAP, Paris, France. Mario Pianta is a researcher at CNR-ISRDS, Rome, and a professor at the University of Urbino, Italy. Giovanni Russo is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at Utrecht University, The Netherlands. xv Pascal Petit and Luc Soete - 9781781950999 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/24/2021 04:52:12PM via free access xvi Contributors Mark Sanders is a researcher at MERIT and in the Department of Econom- ics and Business Administration of Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract: Knowledge Sharing: a Global Challenge
    Parallel working group: Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing: a global challenge Luc Soete (UNU-MERIT) Abstract While there remains a huge concentration of knowledge production activities in the developed countries, the last twenty years have seen a major shift in world wide access to codified knowledge. The role of information and communication technologies has been instrumental here, as has been that of more capital and organisational embedded forms of technology transfer such as foreign direct investment. Today one of the most important enabling features for development is knowledge access. Access is, however, not required to knowledge under such codified or capital embedded forms alone, but also to the tools and (legal) ability to replicate and improve upon knowledge. For developing countries it is no longer access to knowledge as passive producers/consumers which fitted well with the old development model where developing countries would be treated as consumers who would not have the ability to innovate or, if more industrially advanced, would imitate production methods developed elsewhere. The cases reviewed in the paper show that while access to codified knowledge may build skills through passive absorption (e.g. through textbooks), access to technology in a form that can be shared and modified without entry barriers can build advanced skills and compensate for the absence of formal training. While access to knowledge as a passive process is politically framed within the language of development aid, access to technology as a way of providing the right and ability of participation is analogous to the arguments favouring free trade: developing countries can then be seen as providing a resource of potential innovators, rather than merely using existing innovations from the developed world.
    [Show full text]
  • Science- Based Policy Advice in the COVID-19 Pandemic
    www.merit.unu.edu number 4, 2020 Overview The COVID-19 pandemic is not Hammer or nudge? Science- only confronting the world with a new and deadly virus – it has also based policy advice in the brought ‘science’ back into the lead of policymaking. One can only welcome this dramatic recognition of the value COVID-19 pandemic and role of science to society amid the COVID-19 public health challenge. However, the science-based policy he COVID-19 pandemic is not only confronting the world with a new advice for measures to combat COVID- and deadly virus – it has also brought ‘science’ back into the lead of 19 has also some worrying features. T Three are being discussed here. They policymaking. The global science community is busier than ever and open have led to a strong national bias in science is becoming the norm as researchers routinely share their data. both science-based policy advice and Meanwhile, the vaccine research community, both in public and private in the national policies implemented research labs, is working together day and night in developing, experiment- to combat COVID-19. Alternative ing and testing possible new vaccines. One can only welcome this dramatic approaches are discussed focusing in recognition of the value and role of science to society amid the COVID-19 particular on the European Union. public health challenge. As if scientists wake up in a new world of facts and evidence-based policy. Written by Luc Soete1. Edited by However, the science-based policy advice for measures to combat Howard Hudson, UNU-MERIT COVID-19 has also some worrying features.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Impact Brochure
    c.at pact.a e-im enc sci w. ww Science Impact Rethinking the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy International Conference 10–11 May 2007, Vienna CONTACT & COMMUNICATION If you have any questions concerning the Science Impact Conference, please write an E-mail to [email protected] or via postal service to: Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Sensengasse 1 1090 Vienna, Austria Project Manager Alexander Damianisch E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +43-1-505 67 40 ext. 8112 Science Impact Rethinking the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy Content Programme 4–5 Welcome and Introduction 6–10 Keynotes 11 The Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy Karl Aiginger, Haim Harari, Sheila Jasanoff 12–14 Session A 15 The Impact of Basic Research: Theory, History, Expectations Herbert Gottweis, Andrew Webster, Joel Mokyr, Luc Soete 17–20 Session B 21 Funding Models and their Influence on the Impact of Basic Research Erik Arnold, Ian Halliday, Susan Cozzens, Chris Mombers 23–26 Session C 27 Scope, Limits and Role of Impact Evaluation Helga Nowotny, Ben Martin, Benoit Godin, Wolfgang Polt 29–32 Conference Summary 33 Stefan Kuhlmann 34 Closing Event 35 Gerhard Widmer, Erika Chun PROGRAMME Thursday, 10th May 2007 08:00 – 09:00 Registration Welcome 09:00 – 09:30 Christoph Kratky, Austrian Science Fund Ian Halliday, European Science Foundation Opening Statements 09:30 – 10:00 Johannes Hahn, Federal Ministry of Science and Research Werner Faymann, Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CURRICULUM VITAE PERSONAL DETAILS DUMONT BEATRICE Professional address : University of Paris Sorbonne Paris Cité CEPN-CNRS Office J303 Faculty of Economics 99, avenue Jean-Baptiste Clément F-93430 Villetaneuse Email: [email protected] CURRENT POSITIONS________________________________________________________ . Tenured Full Professor, University of Paris XIII Sorbonne Paris Cité, Department of Economics, since 2010. Senior Research Fellow, CEPN-CNRS UMR 7115, since 2010. Associate Research Fellow of the LABEX Consortium (Centre of excellence) MME-DII (Mathematical, economic and financial modelling), since 2012. Associate Research Fellow, IFRIS (Institute for Research and Innovation in Society), since 2011. Member of the Academic Council, member of the Office of the vice president of the Scientific Committee, Univ. Paris XIII Sorbonne Paris Cité, since 2012. Member of the Disciplinary committee, University Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité, since 2016. Member of the recruiting committee, Univ. Paris XIII Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculty of Economics, since 2012. Responsible of the international relations in the Faculty of economics, University Sorbonne Paris Cite, since 2016. Responsible of the economic section in the Faculty of economics, University Sorbonne Paris Cite, since 2016. Expert for the Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher education (AERES/HCERES), since 2013. Member of the steering committee of TARANIS on green technologies, new instruments of power, French Department of Defence, 2014-to date. Expert for BRG (Office of genetic resources)-INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), 2005-to date. Visiting Professor, College of Europe, Natolin & Bruges, since 2004. 1 PAST POSITIONS____________________________________________________________ . Associate Professor, University of Rennes I, Department of Economics (September 1998-September 2010). Senior Research Fellow, CREM-CNRS UMR 6211 (1998-2010).
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Technical Change and International Trade
    The Economics of Technical Change and International Trade Giovanni Dosi Universita degli Studi di Roma, La Sapienza, Rome, Italy Keith Pavitt Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom Luc Soete Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands gg HARVESTER 3 WHEATSHEAF New York London Toronto Sydney Tokyo Singapore Contents Preface and acknowledgements ix List of tables and figures xii 1 Introduction 1 Notes 13 2 Technology and trade: An overview of the literature 15 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 The 'pure' trade theory: neo-classical extensions and the 'revisionists' 17 2.3 The less pure theory: the 'heretics' 25 2.4 The empirical evidence 31 2.5 Conclusions 35 Notes 36 3 The empirical evidence: 'Stylised' and 'less stylised' facts on technology, growth and trade 40 3.1 The international and intersectoral patterns of innovation 41 3.2 International and intersectoral differences in productivity 51 3.3 International competitiveness, specialisations and trade 64 3.4 Conclusions 71 Notes 72 vi Contents 4 The innovative process: International and intersectoral differences and determinants 75 4.1 Entrepreneurship, demand and relative prices 75 4.2 Technological paradigms and trajectories 82 4.3 Intersectoral differences 90 4.4 Explaining national rates and directions of technological accumulation 98 Notes 111 Interfirm and international differences in technology: A theoretical interpretation and some tests 114 5.1 Introduction: innovation: imitation
    [Show full text]
  • Christopher Freeman Who Passed Away on Monday August 16Th 2010
    In memory of Chris Freeman (11/09/1921-16/08/2010) Christopher Freeman who passed away on Monday August 16th 2010 was not just the founding Director of the Science Policy Research Unit (today the Science and Technology Policy Research www.sussex.ac.uk/spru) at the University of Sussex in 1966, he was, and probably less known to many, also the intellectual anchorage behind the creation of MERIT in 1988. He continued to be heavily involved in MERIT research for at least another 15 years. At the opening of the institute, and maybe to the surprise of many of the Dutch officials present, Freeman emphasized in particular the importance of the need for intellectual and financial independence from changing policy fortunes, and MERIT (and UNU-MERIT today) certainly cherished that advice over the years. It is twenty two years after the event, particularly moving to listen to Chris Freeman's speech at the opening of MERIT back in 1988. The other lectures at that opening were given by the late Ilja Prigogine and Zvi Griliches. At MERIT Chris Freeman was very active in getting involved in many of the first MERIT projects, too many to list here. But his influence on both staff and students in those early years was phenomenal. A whole generation of scholars and PhD students from John Hagedoorn to Jerry Silverberg, Patrick van Cayseele, Bart Verspagen, Rajneesh Narula, Aldo Geuna, Anthony Arundel, Rene Kemp, Adriaan van Zon, Paul Diederen, Theon van Dijk, Hans van Meijl, Acharya Rohini and many more were involved in joint research projects with Chris Chris Freeman speaking at the opening of and wrote joint papers with him.
    [Show full text]
  • Tour D'europe Tallinn Meeting – 6 March 2018
    Tour d'Europe Tallinn Meeting – 6 March 2018 Luc Soete (BE) – Tour d'Europe coordinator [email protected] Luc Soete is honorary Professor of Economics at Maastricht University in The Netherlands. He is a fellow of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science (KNAW) and a member of the supervisory board of the Technical University of Delft. He has been chairman of the Research, Innovation and Science Expert (RISE) group for Commissioner Carlos Moedas till May 2017. Today he is the coordinator of the Tour d’Europe and chairman of the Economic and Social Impact of Research (ESIR) expert group for DG RTD. Luc Soete graduated in economics from Ghent University, Belgium. He obtained a DPhil in economics from Sussex University where he worked as senior research fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit in the late 70’s and 80’s. From 1984 till 1985 he was visiting associate professor at the Department of Economics at Stanford University, USA. In 1986 he joined the new Faculty of Economics and Business Administration (now called the School of Business and Economics) at Maastricht University as professor of International Economics Relations. In 1988 he set up the research institute MERIT (Maastricht Economic Research institute on Innovation and Technology) which merged in 2005 with UNU-INTECH to become UNU- MERIT which he directed till 2012. From September 2012 till September 2016, he was Rector Magnificus of Maastricht University. Over the last 30 years, Luc Soete has contributed as (co- )author and (co-)editor to some 11 books, 50 refereed articles and some 100 chapters in books.
    [Show full text]
  • Maastricht, 4 October 2011
    NEWS RELEASE: Maastricht, 7 October 2011 UNU-MERIT / Maastricht Graduate School of Governance Sign Official Cooperation with United Nations Student Association Maastricht On 4 October 2011, the United Nations University MERIT institute and Maastricht University’s Graduate School of Governance signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations Student Association Maastricht (UNSA). With this agreement, both parties seek further collaboration in promoting the goals of the United Nations. Prof. Dr. Luc Soete, director of UNU-MERIT and dean of MGSoG, signed the Memorandum together with UNSA president Janika Bockmeyer. The Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG) and the United Nations University’s Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) started an intensive collaboration in late 2010 with the eventual goal of a merger. In May 2010, their M.Sc. programme in Public Policy and Human Development became the first Master-level programme to be accredited for a double degree with United Nations University. (The programme is also accredited in the Netherlands through Maastricht University.) The United Nations Student Association Maastricht provides a platform for students from all backgrounds, in expanding the goals and workings of the United Nations and other international organizations. It offers local events from lectures to a charity gala, prepares students for multiple Model United Nations (MUN) conferences abroad and offers internships at NGO’s in developing countries. Lastly, the organization of Europe’s second largest MUN, EuroMUN, is also in their hands. The cooperation will be based on financial and content-related matters. UNU-MERIT, MGSoG and UNSA look forward to a fruitful and successful cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Review UNU-MERIT and ICIS 2010-2015
    Research Review UNU-MERIT and ICIS 2010-2015 United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and social Research institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development (ICIS) March 2017 Contents Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 The scope of the assessment .................................................................................................. 4 1.2 The review committee ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3 The research institutes under review ...................................................................................... 5 1.4 Procedures followed by the committee .................................................................................. 8 2 Assessment of UNU-Merit and ICIS ................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Research quality ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Relevance to society .............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 PhD programs .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tour D'europe Paris Meeting – September, 7Th
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH & INNOVATION Tour d'Europe Paris Meeting – September, 7th SPEAKERS from the European Commission / from the group RISE (Research, Innovation and Science Policy Experts) Luc Soete (BE) – Tour d'Europe coordinator Luc Soete (Brussels, 1950) is Professor of International Economic Relations at Maastricht University and Director of UNU-MERIT (the United Nations University-Maastricht Economic Research institute on Innovation and Technology). He is also since October 1st 2010 the Dean of the Maastricht Graduate School of Governance at Maastricht University. Professor Soete is a member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW) and the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy in The Netherlands (AWT). Professor Soete completed his first degrees in economics and development economics at the University of Ghent, Belgium, before obtaining his DPhil in economics at the University of Sussex. Before being appointed professor in Maastricht in 1986, he worked at the Department of Economics of the University of Antwerp, the Institute of Development Studies and the Science Policy Research Unit both at the University of Sussex, and the Department of Economics at Stanford University. In 2002, he was awarded the Maastricht School of Management Honorary Fellow Award. In 2006 he obtained the Commander in the Order of the Crown, a national decoration of Belgium. In 2010 he received a Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Ghent. Luc Soete published extensively on the economics of innovation and technological change as well as the related policy and measurement issues. Kurt Vandenberghe (BE) Kurt is Director for Policy Development and Coordination at the European Commission's DG Research and Innovation since 1st February 2016.
    [Show full text]